Homosexual orientation and child molestation

Let the truth be told: homosexuals are more likely to molest children. And that's a fact. But its not to say all homosexuals molest, that is false. It is not even to say most homosexuals are molesters, that would be false too. The majority of homosexual people are very normal and pleasant people. When I say African Americans commit more murders then whites its a fact, but most African Americans are great people. So what I am saying is admitting the facts that homosexuals molest more often then heterosexuals then you are not being bigoted.

Now most child sex offenders are heterosexual. So how do these facts not contradict? Gay people in this country account for 3% of the population, so if one heterosexual man molests a girl it would not affect the percentage of heterosexuals molesting by an extreme. A homosexual however would. So less net homosexuals do it but statistically can do it at a higher rate.[1]

Now the facts are indeed on my side, as most studies show homosexuals (men who molest boys chiefly) molest at higher rates then heterosexuals.  So to find the high rate is easy, lets look at some key facts.

Pedophiles are usually males[1]

The majority of research is clear that pedophilia is very rare in women but does exist in male sects. Again this does not mean most males are pedophiles, but their selective rate of pedophilia is higher. This is also what I am arguing on homosexual molestations

Many victims are male[1]

About one third of abused children [sexually] are males.

Many of these molesters [of boys] admit to being homosexual[2]

86% of men who molest boys admit to being homosexuals. This also includes bisexuals.

------------

Since 30% of child sex abuse incidences are done by homosexual perpetrators, to a gay activist they say "look not a majority, no higher rate, I win". No you don't win, you cant understand rates.  As 30% of offenders are homosexual, less then 3% of the population is gay, this means homosexuals rate of molestation is 10 times higher. Also, a segment of the gay population (even if they do not commit the acts) do not condone pedophilia, and outright support it. [3]




[1] http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=is02e3
[2] W.D. Erickson "Behavior Patterns of Child molesters" Archives of Sexual Behavior (1988)
[3] Peter Sprigg "10 myths about Homosexuality" Family Research Counsel (2010)

2012 election: state polling

http://ElectoralMap.net/2012/myPrediction.php?d=qo0tqnr0nr0nrwnxq

 Its essentially a tie, based on conventional knowledge, state polling, guesses,  past elections, I made a decision... except for Florida. Current number Romney 243, Obama 266. If Romney wins Florida, he wins. If Obama wins Florida, he wins. Its all on you florida!!!!

Myths and Fact about homosexuality

Myth 1: Animals do it too!!

Fact: Yes, they do. Monkeys have also been observed to eat their young, spiders eat their mates, other animals kill their young (or other youngs) to enhance the lives of other animals or enhance the chance their other young survive. The original mammals would eat their children if it meant saving their lives. Is it natural for people to eat their young too?

Myth 2: They where born that way

Fact: I made a parody of that song once......

Anyway. The majority of studies arguing a genetic born that way factor are highly flawed, many had small sample sizes, non random samples, and sometimes mis-classification of their subjects. These fatal flaws destroy the heart of the scientific evidence of the theory. As studys point out:

1. Critical review shows evidence favoring a biologic [genetic] theory to be lacking. ... In fact, the current trend may be to underrate the explanatory power of extant psychological models.  ¹

2.  [After saying gene theory is laughable] In contrast, out results support the hypothesis that less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadolescence shapes subsequent same sex  romantic preferences. ²

3. The chief causal factor [of homosexuality] is the affect of anxiety, which inhibits standard stimulation and compels the 'ego action system in the individual' to bring forth an altered scheme of stimulation as a 'reparative adjustment'. Both the inhibitory and the reparative processes begin far back in early childhood, leading up to the picture which we encounter in the adult.  ³

 Myth 3: Well... 10% of people are gay, some study said that!

Fact: That study has found to be highly flawed and has been discredited by other analysis, and its numbers have not been reproduced. And he also said anyone who engaged in homosexual acts in teenage years, but are self identified as straights in their adult lives, he classified them as "gay". Based on his own results, only 4% of the population was gay for their whole lifetime.  ⁴  

^{Newer surveys disprove this estimate. All of these surveys use 3 points to estimate homosexuality accurately: 1. self Identification, 2. behavior, 3. and attractions. Based on data, the number of people who have been exclusively homosexual on all three of those specifications is extremely low: 0.6% of men and 0.2% of women. 5}           

That's enough of that, right? Only myth people care about is myth 2. Lets expand more studies!! (all quotes) 

1. Although the popular perception of homosexuality has been that, at least in men, homosexuality is caused by biological factors, the most current and best scientific evidence appears to show that at most homosexuality is only influenced by biology in a predisposing way. The research efforts which have attempted to determine a biological cause for homosexual attraction have failed.   

Source: Stony Olsen, Homosexuality: Innate and Immutable?," Regent University Law Review (2002)

2. While some authors have speculated about the existence of 'genes for homosexuality,' genes in themselves cannot directly specify any behavior or cognitive schema. Instead, genes direct a particular pattern of RNA synthesis which in turn specifies the production of a particular protein.

There are necessarily many intervening pathways between a gene and a specific behavior and even more intervening variables between a gene and a pattern that involves both thinking and behaving.

The term 'homosexual gene' is, therefore, without meaning, unless one proposes that a particular gene, perhaps through a hormonal mechanism, organizes the brain specifically to support a homosexual orientation.

Source: William Byne "Science and Belief: Psychobiological Research on Sexual Orientation"Journal of Homosexuality (1995)

3. It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.

Source: Simon LeVay "Sexual Brain" Discover (1994)

4. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard who focused on identical twins, non-identical twins, non-adopted siblings and adopted siblings... found a 52% concordance rate for the identical twins which means that for every homosexual twin, the chances were about 50% that his twin would also be homosexual... If there is something in the genetic code that makes an individual homosexual, why did not all of the identical twins become homosexual since they have the exact same genetic endowment?... Some comparative data on twin studies [are] the concordance rate for identical twins on measures of extroversion is 50%, religiosity is 50%, divorce is 52%, racial prejudice and bigotry is 58%. From the Bailey and Pillard study one has to conclude that environmental influences play a strong role in the development of homosexuality.

Source: Dean Byrd, "Born That Way? Facts and Fiction About Homosexuality," Meridian Magazine (2004)

5. Bailey and Pillard found that the incidence of homosexuality in the adopted brothers of homosexuals (11%) was much higher than recent estimates for the rate of homosexuality in the population (1 to 5%). In fact, it was equal to the rate for non-twin biological brothers. This study clearly challenges a simple genetic hypothesis and strongly suggests that environment contributes significantly to sexual orientation...

Indeed, perhaps the major finding of these heritability studies is that despite having all of their genes in common and having prenatal and postnatal environments as close to identical as possible, approximately half of the identical twins were nonetheless discordant for orientation. This finding underscores just how little is known about the origins of sexual orientation. 

Source: William Byne, "The Biological Evidence Challenged" Scientific American (1994) 

Special thanks to:

Although many of these studies I have read through PDF files on google, many of them I got from Pro Con.org (I had other quotes but used PRO CON.orgs quotes as they where better) [http://borngay.procon.org/]

Not all of my quotes where PROCON.orgs though. A few where from the FRC's "10 myths about homosexuality". 

But as we can see, no one is "born gay".

  ¹  Dean H. Hamer "A Linkage Between DNA Markers on the X chromosome and Male sexual orientation" Science (1993)
  ^{2   Peter S. Bearman and Hannah Bruckner "Opposite-sex twins and Adolescent Same Sex Attraction" American Journal of Sociology (2003)
  3} Sandor Rado "A Critical Examination of the Concept of Bisexuality,"  Psychosomatic Medicine (1940)

  4  His model was created in 1948: Alfred C. Kinsey, Wardell P. Pomeroy, and Clyde E. Martin "Sexual behavior in the human male" Philadelphia: Saunders (1948) 

  ⁵ Laumann, Edward O. "The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States." Chicago: University of Chicago, 1994.

Top news shows

FOXNEWS OREILLY 3,108,000 FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,973,000 FOXNEWS GRETA 2,802,000 FOXNEWS BAIER 2,441,000 FOXNEWS SHEP 2,147,000 FOXNEWS FIVE 1,590,000 CMDY DAILY SHOW 1,516,000 MSNBC MADDOW 1,256,000 CMDY COLBERT 1,226,000 MSNBC SCHULTZ 1,119,000 MSNBC HARDBALL 790,000 MSNBC SHARPTON 771,000 CNN COOPER 630,000 CNN MORGAN 591,000 Source: http://www.debate.org/forums/politics/topic/21743/

Does gun control work?

Washington D.C. used to have the most stringent gun laws in the US, luckily the courts struck down that law. The murder rate since the ban has risen 134% whilst the nations murder rate fell 2%. When the ban ended the amount of violent crime decreased. At the same time Virginia Beach had the lowest crime, one of the lowest, murder rates when they had less stringent gun laws.

NYC, everyone loves that place, until they get mugged. In 1960 only 19% of all murders involved usage of a gun, after they restricted handguns the number jumped too 49%. There are only 28,000 legally owned handguns in the city, and 1.3 million illegal ones. Meaning people where obtaining them illegally regardless of the law, meaning gun control fails.

In maryland 1986 small cheap weapons, saturday night specials, was made to lower the amount of murder involving a small quarel then driving over to the nearest gun dealer. In 2 years murder rose 20%. Its murder rate was 33% higher then the rest of the nations.

New Hampshire has little gun control, and little crime.

Vermont has the lowest gun control (higher number the better) and rankes 47th in murder, and 49/50 for all crimes.

States that passed ccw laws murder dropped 8.5%

Guns do make it easier for bad things to happen, but they also make it easier to deter criminals and defend oneself. Guns deter more crime then they cause. Gun control is doing the opposite of what it is supposed to do.

Romney v. Obama, another prediction

Another one, I know I am annoying. But this time I am going to use elephant watcher data not roves data. With their polls selected (they choose only the common accurate ones i.e. Gallup or Rasmussen). They have Romney at +.8%. That's a tie based on margin of error, something they miss. So this data is more faulty then the one I used yesterday.

Now using their data romney will win the core republican states, ohio and florida. Basically his 3-2-1 plan (3-2-1 plan: http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/2012/4/20/karl_rove_voters_need_reason_to.htm) so the map looks like this: (or similar)

http://ElectoralMap.net/2012/myPrediction.php?d=bo0wqnr0qr0nqwnxz

 

 

REPUBLICAN 271 ✓

DEMOCRAT 267

 

 

Is banning Same Sex Marriage unconstitutional?

"The three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston ruled that the provision defining marriage as between a man and woman is unconstitutional in that it denies gay couples the rights granted to heterosexual couples."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/31/federal-court-rules-centerpiece-gay-marriage-law-unconstitutional/#ixzz1wZBlEzlL

Claim: It infringes the due process and equal protection clause

 

Fact: The debate over same sex marriage is actually what marriage is. No one can claim a breach of liberty, right, or other notions without first answering this question. to claim a liberty has been violated, marriage must be defined."[1] As Robert George, Sherif Girgis, and Ryan Anderson continue:

""Any legal system that distinguishes marriage from other, nonmarital forms of association, romantic or not, will justly exclude some kinds of union from recognition. So before we can conclude that some marriage policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, or any other moral or constitutional principle, we have to determine what marriage actually is and why it should be recognized legally in the first place. That will establish which criteria (like kinship status) are relevant, and which (like race) are irrelevant to a policy that aims to recognize real marriages. So it will establish when, if ever, it is a marriage that is being denied legal recognition, and when it is something else that is being excluded."[1]

 

This is the most common quote I think that has been used in the SSM debate, and the thing is it works. Before claiming whether or not this right is being infringed we must ask even if the right applies. Marriage is by nature a heterosexual procreative union meant to lead to other child rearing acts. Marriage is a heterosexual union. Same Sex "marriage" does not exist therefore no right is being infringed. 

 

Also arguing any loss of rights actually begs the question if the right even exists. Only if this right exists are they actually being deprived of something.  Even if this right exists, the equal protection does not apply (see quote). 

Also this view falsely argues all discrimination is unjust discrimination. Like all other rights it is NOT absolute. Freedom of speech can be taken away. Gun rights for criminals can also be taken away. Even if we have this pre-conceived notion that the right exists one could argue that it is not absolute (it is, it only applies to heterosexuals). One could also argue discrimination is NOT even bad, as only unjust discrimination is inherently bad. 

So as we can see this claim is a moot, and before you claim liberty is being deprived you have to define what marriage is. As marriage by nature is ONLY heterosexual one can argue the right to marriage does not apply. This liberal claim is illogical. 

Claim: A right to marriage exists

Fact: I personally agree, no doubt that the gays and myself hold this to be true. However, our views do separate and my view here is not self refuting. Even though we agree it is a right, we differ on what marriage entails. (see above claim, it is not self defeating).

 

But it is often argued in courts same sex marriage is a right, and they should get access to the institution, even if it means a redefinition.  Now in my opinion this simplifies the issue, as it means they will be forced to define marriage is just a loving relationship. But this is faulty as this definition means we would have to accommodate for many other couples. And back to what I have been saying this whole time:

"Secondly, one cannot claim to have a right to some X unless one first knows what X is."[2]

 

X is a procreative natural heterosexual union. The point being you cannot have a right to X unless you either define X to your advantage or get rid of X altogether. So marriage is a right, but not for homosexual couples. 

______________________________________________________________________________

 

Well, that's how illogical gay marriage is folks. 

 

 

 

 

______________

[1] Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, “What is Marriage?” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, no. 1 (Winter 2010)

[2]  http://theosophical.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/marriage-same-sex-marriage-and-fundamental-rights/